You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 November 2016

Prestige Nursing provides personal care to adults in their own home. It also provides a recruitment service, supplying staff to the adult social care sector. This element of the service, although provided by Prestige Nursing would not need to be registered with the Commission. We focussed our inspection on the people in receipt of personal care only. On the day of our inspection there were 34 people using the service.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at, and what people using the service, their relatives, and staff told us.

There is a Registered Manager at this location. A Registered Manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered services, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe and secure when staff visited them, and staff understood the process they should follow to keep people safe. Staff could describe the different ways people may experience abuse and the correct steps they would take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.

We inspected staff rotas, which showed there was a sufficient number of staff available to meet people’s needs. The registered manager told us the service needed to improve the way it managed missed and late visits and explained to us how they were planning to improve this area. Recruitment processes were rigorous and procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place.

When staff supported people to take their medicines, this was managed safely by trained staff who understood their responsibilities. The service and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people had given their consent to the care provided.

Staff told us they had completed training and was encouraged by the service to continue to learn, by completing further qualifications in Health and Social care.

Staff told us they had supervision meetings with the registered manager. We inspected staff records and found these were not always recorded. We have recommended meetings should be consistently recorded in the future.

Everybody told us they had positive relationships with their care workers and were supported by staff that showed patience when supporting people. People told us they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected.

People had an individual care plan which set out their individual care needs. Assessments included needs for mobility aids, specialist diets, medication, allergies, and information relating to health needs.

People told us they were made aware of how to make a complaint and there was a complaints policy and procedure in place. The service worked well with other agencies and professionals to make sure people received the care they needed.

A notification is information about important events the service is required to send to us by law. We found when a safeguarding incident had occurred the service had not notified us of this event.

A new registered manager was recruited and started in post three weeks before the inspection took place. Staff told us they were approachable and supportive.

We inspected the way the service audited the service and found they had a system to assure the quality of the service provided. A service development plan was provided which showed how the service planned to improve the service over the next six months.

Inspection areas



Updated 5 November 2016

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe and staff knew how to identify and raise concerns.

Staff understood how to protect people from harm and abuse.

Staffing levels were sufficient with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people using the service.



Updated 5 November 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that had the training and knowledge to support them effectively.

Staff received regular support from the registered manager.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Act 2005 and DoL’s and understood its principles.



Updated 5 November 2016

The service was caring.

People and their family members told us staff treated them in a kind and respectful way.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and their families were appropriately involved.

Staff respected and took account of people’s individual needs and preferences.



Updated 5 November 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans were detailed and provided guidance for staff to meet people’s individual needs.

There was an effective complaints policy and procedure in place, which enabled people to raise complaints.

People knew how to raise concerns but complaints were not always recorded in the way the company wanted them to be.


Requires improvement

Updated 5 November 2016

The service was not always well led.

Statutory notifications had not always been submitted to the commission.

There was an open culture at the service. The management team were approachable and a visible presence in the service.

The manager looked at ways they could improve the service it offered.

There were processes in place to monitor the quality of the service and understand people’s experience of what it was like to use the service.